UNITED STATES V. SEEGER 380 U.S. 163 (1965) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. SEEGER

380 U.S. 163 (1965)

NATURE OF THE CASE: These three cases involve the exemption claims under 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of conscientious objectors who did not belong to an orthodox religious sect. In all the cases convictions were obtained for refusal to submit to induction in the armed forces; in Nos. 50 and 51 the Court of Appeals reversed and in No. 29 the conviction was affirmed.

FACTS: Seeger (D) was convicted for having refused to submit to induction in the armed forces. D first claimed exemption as a conscientious objector in 1957 after successive annual renewals of his student classification. D declared that he was conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form by reason of his 'religious' belief; that he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open, 'rather than answer `yes' or `no''; that his 'skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God' did 'not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever'; that his was a 'belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed.' D cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity 'without belief in God, except in the remotest sense.' D's belief was found to be sincere, honest, and made in good faith; and his conscientious objection to be based upon individual training and belief, both of which included research in religious and cultural fields. D's claim was denied solely because it was not based upon a 'belief in a relation to a Supreme Being' as required by 6 (j) of the Act. D was convicted and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Supreme Being requirement of the section distinguished 'between internally derived and externally compelled beliefs' and was, therefore, an 'impermissible classification' under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Jakobson (D) stated that he believed in a 'Supreme Being' who was 'Creator of Man' in the sense of being 'ultimately responsible for the existence of' man and who was 'the Supreme Reality' of which 'the existence of man is the result.' D had concluded that man must be 'partly spiritual' and, therefore, 'partly akin to the Supreme Reality'; and that his 'most important religious law' was that 'no man ought ever to wilfully sacrifice another man's life as a means to any other end . . . .' D defined religion as the 'sum and essence of one's basic attitudes to the fundamental problems of human existence and that he believed in 'Godness' which was 'the Ultimate Cause for the fact of the Being of the Universe'; that to deny its existence would but deny the existence of the universe because 'anything that Is, has an Ultimate Cause for its Being.' The Board classified him 1-A-O and D appealed. The hearing officer found that the claim was based upon a personal moral code and that he was not sincere in his claim. The Appeal Board classified him 1-A. The Court of Appeals reversed, held because it could not determine whether the Appeal Board had found that Jakobson's beliefs failed to come within the statutory definition, or whether it had concluded that he lacked sincerity, it directed dismissal of the indictment.

Forest Britt Peter (D) was not a member of a religious sect or organization; D failed to execute section VII of the questionnaire but attached to it a quotation expressing opposition to war, in which he stated that he concurred. D felt it a violation of his moral code to take human life and that he considered this belief superior to his obligation to the state. D quoted with approval Reverend John Haynes Holmes' definition of religion as 'the consciousness of some power manifest in nature which helps man in the ordering of his life in harmony with its demands . . . [; it] is the supreme expression of human nature; it is man thinking his highest, feeling his deepest, and living his best.' As to his belief in a Supreme Being, D stated that he supposed 'you could call that a belief in the Supreme Being or God. D was classified 1-A, although there was no evidence in the record that he was not sincere in his beliefs. After his conviction for failure to report for induction the Court of Appeals, assuming arguendo that he was sincere, affirmed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner